Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think any states would not outlaw racial discrimination, other than perhaps Mississippi? Honestly?
I don't think states should be allowed to discriminate themselves.
I simply think the federal government should not have a law banning private businesses from discriminating and that states should, but that they should not (and, really, cannot constitutionally) be forced to.
I think that if everyone is a CITIZEN of this country than a business in ANY state can't be allowed to discriminate. these are civil rights violations that ARE unconstitutional. no state should have the right to violate a citizens constitutional rights
I think that if everyone is a CITIZEN of this country than a business in ANY state can't be allowed to discriminate. these are civil rights violations that ARE unconstitutional. no state should have the right to violate a citizens constitutional rights
How would the state be violating a citizen's constitutional rights?
Wouldn't it be the business? Except the Constitution only guarantees equal protection when it comes to what the government does. It does not guarantee non-discrimination by private citizens or businesses.
I should add that I strongly support state laws preventing discrimination by private businesses against people because of race, sexual orientation, and religion.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 01-06-2012 at 10:16 AM..
So you say you are. Maybe you really are (you have no profile or anything)...I am not saying you aren't. BUT anybody can be whatever they want to be and/or present themselves to be on line, right?
Anyway, you are not really confused. That is a rhetorical ploy.
I don't have to stretch the imagination. YOU do. As it is, whether straight or gay, single people should not be allowed to adopt a baby/small child. The infant/toddler needs a balance of nature provided by a male and female. And a pair of the same sex does not provided it, anymore than a single person of straight persuasion does.
If you don't see/accept this, then we will ever be talking past each other. An infant/toddler/even minor child should not be the chips for a social experiement. They need that balance that nature provided (call it God or nature) of man and woman. The most obvious rationale is that both sexes are needed to reproduce at all. The rest follows from that simple biological fact. Do you honestly think that two women can provide an adolecent boy with all he needs to grow up and prepare him for male life? Or that two men can be what is needed for a young girl experiencing her first period? And those are just obvious examples of -- as DeToqueville said in another context -- of how absolutely presposterious it is for (humans) to presume the wisdom to meddle in the works of nature!
Please spare me this emotive drivel. I said earlier where I stood on that. So now then, when there is actually a constitutional ruling, then the constitutional aspects can be debated/discussed. All you are offereing is YOUR opinion on the constitution. Which is fine, far as that goes. But not to be confused with a precedent and/or brief.
You are proceeding from a reversal of where the proof actually lays. Can you provide one where it DOES?
IN order for it to be constitutional you'd have to have the unchosen TRAIT of HOMOSEXUALITY be illegal in SOME WAy first... WHICH MEANS AS SOON AS KIDS HIT PUBERTY THE GAY KIDS WOULD NEED TO BE ARRESTED FOR EXISTING THE WAY GOD MADE THEM AND THROWN IN JAi.
HATRED OF AN UNCHOSEN TRAIT IS JUST CALLED BIGOTRY, I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE THAT.. BUT THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE
So if your state allowed a business owner to refuse service to someone of your race that would be fine
It wouldn't be fine with me personally, but I would take action against a business who would have such a policy (i.e. protests, boycotts), try to make sure the law didn't get voted in or get it changed if possible, and lastly move to another state that didn't have such a bad law. But yes, if the voters wanted a moronic law, they should have the right to suffer the consequences of it.
I don't think it's OK for states to ban sodomy, but I actually do think it should be OK for a state to allow a business owner to refuse service to someone based on race. I would support laws in my state that prohibited it, but don't necessarily support federal law banning it.
The difference is what's constitutional and what's not - a state certainly doesn't have to mandate that private business owners don't discriminate, but its power over personal affairs is limited.
Until 1967 interracial marriages were illegal in most states. The Supreme Court ruled that those States did not have that right, it can't be long before the same is true with same sex marriage. I don't care for same sex marriage but I have empathy going back to before the Supreme Court made my marriage legal. Taken to it's extreme they could ban marriages between Christians and Jews etc. etc.
As for refusing service, I remember the South in the 60s when I as a young soldier hasd to live on base because of my interacial marriage and go out and enforce the equality of all Americans.
Until 1967 interracial marriages were illegal in most states. The Supreme Court ruled that those States did not have that right, it can't be long before the same is true with same sex marriage. I don't care for same sex marriage but I have empathy going back to before the Supreme Court made my marriage legal. Taken to it's extreme they could ban marriages between Christians and Jews etc. etc.
As for refusing service, I remember the South in the 60s when I as a young soldier hasd to live on base because of my interacial marriage and go out and enforce the equality of all Americans.
You're misintrepreting my view.
I've said that the state should NOT be able to discriminate. I've also, however, said that the federal government should not mandate that private businesses can't discriminate but that state governments should mandate that they don't discriminate, simply that the federal government should not force them to.
It wouldn't be fine with me personally, but I would take action against a business who would have such a policy (i.e. protests, boycotts), try to make sure the law didn't get voted in or get it changed if possible, and lastly move to another state that didn't have such a bad law. But yes, if the voters wanted a moronic law, they should have the right to suffer the consequences of it.
You keep advocating a direct democracy. Why is that? Citizens don't vote for laws. I don't care if 99.999% of citizens in a State vote for something, if it's unConstitutional, the courts have every right to strike it down.
I've said that the state should NOT be able to discriminate. I've also, however, said that the federal government should not mandate that private businesses can't discriminate but that state governments should mandate that they don't discriminate, simply that the federal government should not force them to.
Thanks for your service to our country.
So, you obviously have a business and you would like the opportunity to discriminate against others.
Right..OK
Glad I don't live in Texas, I might accidentally patronize your business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
> Should States Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy?
